chewinggum wrote:Is there any data out there about 3-3.4/sub 3 splitters admission and money to T6 schools?

T6 as sub 3? get outta town. I'd say for HYS - Barring a medal of honor, Olympic athlete, going through brain cancer during UG, or having 10+ years of work experience where you created snapchat and facebook, it's not at all plausible. CCN you might be able to pull some tom foolery with a 175+ and some incredibly strong softs + WE + LoR + addendum.

3.0-3.4 will have a reasonable shot at CN (not chicago - they don't play games with GPA this low) with a 175 + though without anything crazy unique on their app, but it usually comes at full sticker price.

Man, these damn schools.

Omg ... your examples of what HYS may consider killed me lmao.

What about a 3.8 (3.84 weighted)? That's what I have from UCLA. But I feel like that's on the very low end for those schools.

On my last 4 PTs I've been in a steady decline of 171(PT45)-167(PT46)-166(PT76)-163(PT69). This was not a boost to my confidence.

This is all after coming off the academic high of getting my first 4.0 semester. No idea how my junior year ended up this well. Bumped by LSAC GPA from a 3.69 to a 3.75. Never thought I would be able to get it that high. Based on the classes I'm taking first semester next year I could go as high as a 3.77. Not tryna brag, just venting a 'lil.

I neeeeeeed this LSAT to go well. My original top-end goal was Columbia but with this GPA hike I'm starting to think Harvard might be a possibility. In the 7 tests I've taken since I started studying again in January I've only broken 170 twice (both 171's, PTs 42 and 45) and I've been averaging 167. I'm currently a Michigan undergrad and would love to stay here for law school and a 168ish is probably enough to get in but I'd at the very least like to have options on the higher end of the T14.

My biggest problem is consistency. On LG I go -0 or I can go -5. RC -3 or -9. LG is all over the place, could be -0 on one section and then -5 on the other. I know it's not a lack of understanding or ability at this point, I almost never get a question wrong that I don't understand what the right answer is and why. I'm just always making the dumb mistakes. If I get lucky I could get a 178. If I get unlucky I could get a 160. Frustrating.

Remaining tests are 70, 71, and 77-80. Hopefully that and whatever questions/sections I have remaining will be enough.

Sorry for the rant, just starting to feel the pressure.

Congrats on raising your gpa!

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I am shooting for Sep and haven't even hit the books yet!

chewinggum wrote:Is there any data out there about 3-3.4/sub 3 splitters admission and money to T6 schools?

T6 as sub 3? get outta town. I'd say for HYS - Barring a medal of honor, Olympic athlete, going through brain cancer during UG, or having 10+ years of work experience where you created snapchat and facebook, it's not at all plausible. CCN you might be able to pull some tom foolery with a 175+ and some incredibly strong softs + WE + LoR + addendum.

3.0-3.4 will have a reasonable shot at CN (not chicago - they don't play games with GPA this low) with a 175 + though without anything crazy unique on their app, but it usually comes at full sticker price.

Not sure why reading this was so entertaining lol

But I'm always hesitant to trust LSN since they are self reports..

It is all self reported, so you should take it with a grain of salt. THere is such a small pool of data for splitters and super splitters, that it really isn't fair to conclude anything at all. You just have to make your application perfect, and kill the LSAT. After that, it's praying to sweet baby jesus that adcoms somewhere see something promising in you.

Splitters are often more common to use consulting services like MS9 to help with the application process, so that also might be a leg up against other splitters. It obviously isn't required, but if you're looking at maximizing your outcome, it's definitely something to look into. They do amazing work.

chargers21 wrote:Chi is a little GPA stingy, I actually think H might be more likely for a super high LSAT splitter. For all the H bashing, I think there's a solid chance you'll get in and it could make sense for you (but I might be underestimating your GPA, I really can't remember). The +/- .2 might be a little wide. Like, for my chances at Chi, there was a major difference for above and below 3.91. Almost everyone gets in above, like 10% get in below, even if just slightly one way or the other.

Duke lowballs a lot. It definitely seems like some of their pull comes from the warm location and superior to all southern placement

that might be a spread, try 3.5 +/- .1 because at both ends of the bell curve you see changes that are drastic. I would be more comfortable with 250g from H than 250g from CLS but would like to be as debt adverse as possible. Chi is a shot in the dark, most likely a WL.

chargers21 wrote:Chi is a little GPA stingy, I actually think H might be more likely for a super high LSAT splitter. For all the H bashing, I think there's a solid chance you'll get in and it could make sense for you (but I might be underestimating your GPA, I really can't remember). The +/- .2 might be a little wide. Like, for my chances at Chi, there was a major difference for above and below 3.91. Almost everyone gets in above, like 10% get in below, even if just slightly one way or the other.

Duke lowballs a lot. It definitely seems like some of their pull comes from the warm location and superior to all southern placement

that might be a spread, try 3.5 +/- .1 because at both ends of the bell curve you see changes that are drastic. I would be more comfortable with 250g from H than 250g from CLS but would like to be as debt adverse as possible. Chi is a shot in the dark, most likely a WL.

chargers21 wrote:Chi is a little GPA stingy, I actually think H might be more likely for a super high LSAT splitter. For all the H bashing, I think there's a solid chance you'll get in and it could make sense for you (but I might be underestimating your GPA, I really can't remember). The +/- .2 might be a little wide. Like, for my chances at Chi, there was a major difference for above and below 3.91. Almost everyone gets in above, like 10% get in below, even if just slightly one way or the other.

Duke lowballs a lot. It definitely seems like some of their pull comes from the warm location and superior to all southern placement

that might be a spread, try 3.5 +/- .1 because at both ends of the bell curve you see changes that are drastic. I would be more comfortable with 250g from H than 250g from CLS but would like to be as debt adverse as possible. Chi is a shot in the dark, most likely a WL.

chargers21 wrote:Chi is a little GPA stingy, I actually think H might be more likely for a super high LSAT splitter. For all the H bashing, I think there's a solid chance you'll get in and it could make sense for you (but I might be underestimating your GPA, I really can't remember). The +/- .2 might be a little wide. Like, for my chances at Chi, there was a major difference for above and below 3.91. Almost everyone gets in above, like 10% get in below, even if just slightly one way or the other.

Duke lowballs a lot. It definitely seems like some of their pull comes from the warm location and superior to all southern placement

that might be a spread, try 3.5 +/- .1 because at both ends of the bell curve you see changes that are drastic. I would be more comfortable with 250g from H than 250g from CLS but would like to be as debt adverse as possible. Chi is a shot in the dark, most likely a WL.

TWiiX wrote:It is all self reported, so you should take it with a grain of salt. THere is such a small pool of data for splitters and super splitters, that it really isn't fair to conclude anything at all. You just have to make your application perfect, and kill the LSAT. After that, it's praying to sweet baby jesus that adcoms somewhere see something promising in you.

Splitters are often more common to use consulting services like MS9 to help with the application process, so that also might be a leg up against other splitters. It obviously isn't required, but if you're looking at maximizing your outcome, it's definitely something to look into. They do amazing work.

Yeah I think the fact that it's self-reported definitely makes it appear more favorable for splitters than it actually is. I always wanted to do the consulting thing, I just don't think I can afford that cost for what might be a negligible boost.

TWiiX wrote:It is all self reported, so you should take it with a grain of salt. THere is such a small pool of data for splitters and super splitters, that it really isn't fair to conclude anything at all. You just have to make your application perfect, and kill the LSAT. After that, it's praying to sweet baby jesus that adcoms somewhere see something promising in you.

Splitters are often more common to use consulting services like MS9 to help with the application process, so that also might be a leg up against other splitters. It obviously isn't required, but if you're looking at maximizing your outcome, it's definitely something to look into. They do amazing work.

Yeah I think the fact that it's self-reported definitely makes it appear more favorable for splitters than it actually is. I always wanted to do the consulting thing, I just don't think I can afford that cost for what might be a negligible boost.

While it's easy to see people lying and making up stats to give false hope for splitters, I think there's a case to be made for the other side as well. Since it's such a small data pool, I wonder how many overperformed but for whatever reason decided not to report their success? Maybe this is a clause with certain consulting firms? (I have no idea, entirely speculation)

As for the second statement, I don't know if I agree with calling their success marginal. They have plenty of testimonies of getting 50k+ increase in scholarships out of negotiations. Even if you pay them a few thousand (not sure of price, but let's say 2g), that's a pretty damn solid ROI if you have the cash up front (easy for me to say since I've been working full time for 2+ years).

Their staff also personally know deans, adcoms, etc from a majority of the T13. I won't go as far as saying that they will call Asha up at Yale and ask for you to personally be admitted, but I have a feeling they'd be more inclined to pick a MS9 user over a random person if it was a crapshoot between the two (identical stats). They even consult for law schools. So they obviously have great working relationships with some of these people who will be making decisions on your acceptance/denials.

Last edited by twiix on Thu May 18, 2017 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TWiiX wrote:It is all self reported, so you should take it with a grain of salt. THere is such a small pool of data for splitters and super splitters, that it really isn't fair to conclude anything at all. You just have to make your application perfect, and kill the LSAT. After that, it's praying to sweet baby jesus that adcoms somewhere see something promising in you.

Splitters are often more common to use consulting services like MS9 to help with the application process, so that also might be a leg up against other splitters. It obviously isn't required, but if you're looking at maximizing your outcome, it's definitely something to look into. They do amazing work.

Yeah I think the fact that it's self-reported definitely makes it appear more favorable for splitters than it actually is. I always wanted to do the consulting thing, I just don't think I can afford that cost for what might be a negligible boost.

TWiiX wrote:It is all self reported, so you should take it with a grain of salt. THere is such a small pool of data for splitters and super splitters, that it really isn't fair to conclude anything at all. You just have to make your application perfect, and kill the LSAT. After that, it's praying to sweet baby jesus that adcoms somewhere see something promising in you.

Splitters are often more common to use consulting services like MS9 to help with the application process, so that also might be a leg up against other splitters. It obviously isn't required, but if you're looking at maximizing your outcome, it's definitely something to look into. They do amazing work.

Yeah I think the fact that it's self-reported definitely makes it appear more favorable for splitters than it actually is. I always wanted to do the consulting thing, I just don't think I can afford that cost for what might be a negligible boost.

TWiiX wrote:It is all self reported, so you should take it with a grain of salt. THere is such a small pool of data for splitters and super splitters, that it really isn't fair to conclude anything at all. You just have to make your application perfect, and kill the LSAT. After that, it's praying to sweet baby jesus that adcoms somewhere see something promising in you.

Splitters are often more common to use consulting services like MS9 to help with the application process, so that also might be a leg up against other splitters. It obviously isn't required, but if you're looking at maximizing your outcome, it's definitely something to look into. They do amazing work.

Yeah I think the fact that it's self-reported definitely makes it appear more favorable for splitters than it actually is. I always wanted to do the consulting thing, I just don't think I can afford that cost for what might be a negligible boost.

On my last 4 PTs I've been in a steady decline of 171(PT45)-167(PT46)-166(PT76)-163(PT69). This was not a boost to my confidence.

This is all after coming off the academic high of getting my first 4.0 semester. No idea how my junior year ended up this well. Bumped by LSAC GPA from a 3.69 to a 3.75. Never thought I would be able to get it that high. Based on the classes I'm taking first semester next year I could go as high as a 3.77. Not tryna brag, just venting a 'lil.

I neeeeeeed this LSAT to go well. My original top-end goal was Columbia but with this GPA hike I'm starting to think Harvard might be a possibility. In the 7 tests I've taken since I started studying again in January I've only broken 170 twice (both 171's, PTs 42 and 45) and I've been averaging 167. I'm currently a Michigan undergrad and would love to stay here for law school and a 168ish is probably enough to get in but I'd at the very least like to have options on the higher end of the T14.

My biggest problem is consistency. On LG I go -0 or I can go -5. RC -3 or -9. LG is all over the place, could be -0 on one section and then -5 on the other. I know it's not a lack of understanding or ability at this point, I almost never get a question wrong that I don't understand what the right answer is and why. I'm just always making the dumb mistakes. If I get lucky I could get a 178. If I get unlucky I could get a 160. Frustrating.

Remaining tests are 70, 71, and 77-80. Hopefully that and whatever questions/sections I have remaining will be enough.

Sorry for the rant, just starting to feel the pressure.

Congrats on raising your gpa!

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I am shooting for Sep and haven't even hit the books yet!

Haha, thanks on both accounts. Currently in the 15 min break for my PT. Yeah, I started studying kinda on a whim sometime last June and took the 7sage course while I was abroad. I was working an 8:00-5:00 internship while living out of a hotel room with a roommate for two months and trying to study. Then when I got back I worked/studied until school started, drank for a week, then the semester started and it wasn't ideal. If you're in a situation where you can actually focus on the test for 3-4 months you'll probably do better than I did, lol.

After the September test I took the rest of the semester off and then got a tutor when I arrived on campus, he's been fantastic. So I guess it's been more of a slow burn for me but I'm hoping it works out.